Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The hopeless quest of a hopeless theory

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

There’s a big “evolution of religion” conference coming up in Hawaii: http://www.evolutionofreligion.org/index.php. Daniel Dennett is among the featured speakers. Here’s a brief description of another featured speaker:

On Sunday evening the Rev. Michael Dowd, who has been called “North America’s evolutionary evangelist,” will share his experience of teaching and preaching a sacred, meaningful view of cosmic, biological, and human evolution to secular and religious audiences of all ages and across the theological spectrum.

You think ID might be a welcomed perspective at this conference?

Comments
todd,
Your recent philosophical musings are knarly thigh bones for mental mastication!
Well, thank you. But Carl and Bill are probably shaking their heads at my philosophical naivete. The upside is that some folks at UD now have a much better idea of what I am about than they did a couple days ago. Here's to better communication in the future.Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Tom and Carlos (for some reason, more appealling than the truncate!) - Thank you both for your tenacious and adoctrinaire opinions. It is refreshing to see temperate, thought provoking and erudite dissent and I wholeheartedly applaud you both. Your recent philosophical musings are knarly thigh bones for mental mastication!todd
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
Carl:
The philosopher Donald Davidson has argued — I think correctly — that it is not even possible to begin with the a priori assumption that nothing is knowable, or that nothing outside of one’s own mind is knowable. This is a Cartesian fantasy, nothing more — although one I still enjoy inflicting on my students.
I dream, therefore I doubt.Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
41
Carlos, re 22, I don’t think people are saying that ontologically distinct entities are detectible empirically, but rather their effects.
Depends on what's going to count as "empirically detectable," I guess. If the effects are such that positing the existence of a transcendent entity is justified by inference to the best explanation, I'm willing to call that "empirically detectable."
Now this seems pretty logical and I would wonder what someone like Carl, who believes in God, could object to here. And I am not even talking about what should be taught in the classroom, but rather the ridiculing of even holding this viewpoint. But maybe it has something to do with your opinion that supernatural entities are metaphysically distinct from the causal, spatio-temporal realm.
My stance on this matter is that methodological naturalism has a pretty good track record, and while that doesn't show that it must continue to work in future inquiry, it still looks a solid bet. Of course one should be open-minded, but that's not a philosophically interesting view. What would be philosophically interesting would be if one could argue that the nature of the problem -- whatever it is -- is such that methodological naturalism lacks the conceptual resources with which to construct a satisfactory explanation. But one cannot do that without importing some further ad hoc assumption (e.g. theistic realism), thereby violating methodological naturalism's exclusion of a priori assumptions. I do believe in God, but I do not rely on any metaphysical apparatus, whether that of Aristotle or Johnson, in order to understand what it is that I believe. More generally, I do not find that "does God really exist?" to be a very helpful or interesting question -- it is on par with "do numbers really exist?" or "does justice really exist?" The question-schema, "does ____ really exist?" does not lend itself to intellectual or cultural innovation. If anything, it begs the question, "what does 'really exist' mean?" Forget the 'really' -- what does 'exist' mean? Does 'exist' mean the same thing in "the coffee cup exists"; "there once existed an ancentral Urbilaterian organism"; "there does not exist a largest integer"; "God exists"; etc. You see, I think that there are enormous difficulties here. I've been told, sometimes, that I'm just being difficult, and that I'm creating problems where there aren't any. Whereas I think that there are huge problems that most of us aren't paying attention to.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT
avocationists,
Let me ask you this, Tom, suppose you get to watch God create the universe. Altho a one-time (or very rare) event, only natural laws and forces are used. Is this a superanatural event?
Natural and supernatural mean nothing in my personal belief system. From the perspective of contemporary science, the creation of the universe by God would be supernatural. You have to understand that I look at the world through multiple lenses. I am pretty good at seeing the world in two ways simultaneously, but when I write I must choose one of those ways.Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
42. The link is interesting but inconclusive. This is a preliminary investigation; there is no rebuttal or defense from SI, no evidence of damages to Sternberg (did he lose his job? was he prevented from carrying out his research? was access to the collection cut off?) All the OSC did was say, "yep, it looks like you have a case." If the OSC says it, sure, I'll grant it. But there's a big difference between having a case and winning a case -- and there's also a big difference between having a case and deserving to win a case.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
avocationist:
I can’t divide God from nature, even if God is the ’cause’ of nature. Since I view God as within and upholding all things all the time, and that all things are actually part of God because they arise quite literally OUT of God, I cannot consider God’s actions as supernatural, unless I regard everything in existence as supernatural, which I suppose I do.
I believe that people say what you do only as a matter of private experience. I have said something similar in the past, and it was gobbledy-gook to most people. I think I understand you, and presumably we have had similar private experiences. There is no way to be sure. And there is no way to make empirical science (i.e., consensual interpretation of public experience) accommodate such private Truth.
I fully expect that we will continue to make progress with our instruments and other forms of study into those areas of reality which have hitherto been cut off from our ability to perceive.
I have expressed my openness to the notion that we might infer the existence of something presently unobservable and then learn how to observe it. But I also believe that scientists should resist the introduction of unobservable causes. It should take a lot of evidence to convince them that something other than matter, energy, and their interactions accounts for certain observed instances of complexity in the universe.Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
35
In another thread Carlos argues that we have to begin with some a priori assumptions — which of course is what ID has been saying all along. But let’s not begin as some with the negative assumption that we cannot know anything, that there is no objective reality “out there”, or that we must not admit to design when it stares us in the face. Let’s begin with the positive assumption that nothing is off limits—not even the most important question of all.
The philosopher Donald Davidson has argued -- I think correctly -- that it is not even possible to begin with the a priori assumption that nothing is knowable, or that nothing outside of one's own mind is knowable. This is a Cartesian fantasy, nothing more -- although one I still enjoy inflicting on my students. Interestingly, it is standard practice among philosophers to say that "methodological naturalism" just means that there is nothing a priori, i.e. that there are no principles or beliefs which are immune to revision in light of further inquiry.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs, What a joke of a response. I suggest you read the government report on the investigation of Sternberg's complaint. The link is here: http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htmjerry
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Now that we have discussed the meaning of supernatural at length, I am so confused I'll throw in the towel. The reason I dislike the term is because I think it has perpetuated magical thinking. Take ESP, for example. I am quite sure it is real, and equally sure it has a physical, albeit very subtle, mechanism. Yet Tom says once we observe something it becomes no longer supernatural. So it is a movable demarcation. We don't know what is supernatural and what is not. Let me ask you this, Tom, suppose you get to watch God create the universe. Altho a one-time (or very rare) event, only natural laws and forces are used. Is this a superanatural event? Also, intelligence and intent seem more parsimonious to me than blind and random interactions. Tom, you also said, What I know to be ultimately true comes from turning my consciousness upon itself. And here language breaks down. Yet Carlos expressed what so many fear - a chaotic jumble of everyone's conflicting innner visions. So most people choose to just stay far away from inner exploration, or from trusting it. Have you any advice? Well, I certainly am not looking for God in the universe of phenomena, Isn't you deciding to turn your consciousness in upon itself a part of the universe of phenomena? Carlos, re 22, I don't think people are saying that ontologically distinct entities are detectible empirically, but rather their effects. Jerry said, However, if this intelligence exists then the intelligent thing to do is to admit that there may be some aspect of the natural world for which it may be fruitless to find a non-intelligent based mechanism to explain it. Keep on investigating but be open to the possibility of continued failure in some areas. Now this seems pretty logical and I would wonder what someone like Carl, who believes in God, could object to here. And I am not even talking about what should be taught in the classroom, but rather the ridiculing of even holding this viewpoint. But maybe it has something to do with your opinion that supernatural entities are metaphysically distinct from the causal, spatio-temporal realm. The purpose of science is to find God. Yay!avocationist
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
avocationist:
It would be useful if you write us a little paragraph on why there is no clear distinction between self and other. [...] In other words, it’s all about perception and consciousness. The material only follows.
Rude:
But let’s not begin as some with the negative assumption that we cannot know anything, that there is no objective reality “out there”, or that we must not admit to design when it stares us in the face. Let’s begin with the positive assumption that nothing is off limits—not even the most important question of all. The purpose of science is to find God. Any less purpose and the great quest will have failed its founders.
There is no way for me to tease out the objective from my percepts. For all I know, my percepts are my own creation. They certainly don't seem to be, but there's no way for me to deny the possibility. Nor is there any way for me to deny that the apparently objective exists apart from my self. This leaves me with a dialectic -- two apparently contradictory ways of seeing the world, and the tension between the two. This is not to say, however, that I regard as coequal what comes to me through outward perception and through inward apperception. I have never seen any reason to trust what comes to me through the senses. What I know to be ultimately true comes from turning my consciousness upon itself. And here language breaks down. So why should I care about science? Well, I certainly am not looking for God in the universe of phenomena, and as I have indicated in several posts above, I believe that science is overvalued. For me, science is a game and a tool. A great deal of basic science is no more than humans at play in nature. We love to systematize experience. Applied science is essentially a tool for prediction and control of the environment and our own bodies. Obviously there is great pragmatic value in applied science. And there is a certain operational truth in its results -- the witnesses of the atomic test blast at White Sands were in no small way impressed by the "truth" of relativity. But I see no Truth in it. I cannot agree that the purpose of science is to find God. Science is founded on empiricism, and I believe that no one should vest faith in sensory experience. The kingdom of God is within you.Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
Why don’t you try the truth about Richard Sternberg. We all would love to know what it is. I am not sure what “my side” is but since you seem to imply the truth is available, let’s hear it. My remark in 29 was intended -- I thought clearly, but apparently not -- to suggest that "the truth" is not available. In l'affaire Sternberg, one finds, on the one hand, Sternberg's own reports. On the Panda's Thumb, one finds a different version of the situation. Which one is correct? Was he unfairly persecuted, as he claims, or did he abuse his authority? I don't know, and I don't pretend to know. That's all I meant by 29.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
P.S. -- Mike, I personally do not think of scientific explanations in terms of truth so much as data compression. Data compression is deeply related to prediction, and prediction, in turn, is intimately related to control. So I have just divulged that I think the p-word, parsimony, is awfully important in science. This puts me at odds with a number of IDists.Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
mike1962,
I think it is perfectly acceptable to proffer materialistic explanations as long as a strong and obvious disclaimer that the explanations are not necessarily “true”, but are the best explanations in a materialist paradigm.
I previously posted on this blog that in high school I requested and received permission to give a talk in my biology class "debunking" evolution. Three years later, I learned a bit about the philosophy of science, and saw that neo-Darwinism made great sense under the assumptions of contemporary science. I also saw that the epistemic value of scientific explanations is limited unless one, as an individual, adds to the assumptions of science. It is very easy, in the present fray, to confuse what vocal scientists say with what science itself says. I have long advocated a high school course in philosophy and comparative religion. Among other things, it would introduce the philosophy of science. I think it is vital that children learn the limitations of science. Unfortunately, we will not see the Discovery Institute backing this idea. Comparative religion reeks of relativism, don't you know?Tom English
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
Rude:
Yes, as you say, people want certainty. The theist and the atheist want the certainty of belief and disbelief, the agnostic the certainty that he cannot know. Pish twaddle! Vive l’incertitude! Uncertainty is where the adventure is, that’s where discovery is.
Rude, well put. Uncertainty is a scary place. Children flee from it. Maturity recognizes, accepts, and welcomes it.bFast
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT
Carlos, provocative as always—but be careful! (you’re too good a man to end up nothing but a “devil’s advocate”)—so in 14 you lump IDists in with “true believers” which you say “are all the same”. Well, no, they aren’t. ID merely asks that “science” license a QUESTION: Can design be detected? It’s the most important question in everybody’s book—this no matter how hard we try to cloud the fact. The theist wants to know that God DOES exist, the atheist wants to know that God does NOT exist, and the agnostic wants to know that we CANNOT know. The theistic evolutionist wants to protect his deity (and his turf) from the uncertainties of objective reality, the secular demarcationist wants to own science and inoculate it against design no matter what the facts. Yes, as you say, people want certainty. The theist and the atheist want the certainty of belief and disbelief, the agnostic the certainty that he cannot know. Pish twaddle! Vive l’incertitude! Uncertainty is where the adventure is, that’s where discovery is. In another thread Carlos argues that we have to begin with some a priori assumptions—which of course is what ID has been saying all along. But let’s not begin as some with the negative assumption that we cannot know anything, that there is no objective reality “out there”, or that we must not admit to design when it stares us in the face. Let’s begin with the positive assumption that nothing is off limits—not even the most important question of all. The purpose of science is to find God. Any less purpose and the great quest will have failed its founders.Rude
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Carl Sachs, Why don't you try the truth about Richard Sternberg. We all would love to know what it is. I am not sure what "my side" is but since you seem to imply the truth is available, let's hear it. Otherwise we have to assume you comment is attempt to confuse an issue. Some people try to clarify, while others constantly attempt to obfuscate. So help us clarify the issue.jerry
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
I am personally quite intrigued by Sheldrake's work. He has made some studies of "ESP" that are producing early findings that ESP may actually be a phenomenon. I would hardly conclude that his experiments have enough rigor, or have been repeated by other experimenters enough, to become respected science. However, Sheldrake's experiments are showing that the scientific method of running experiments and doing simple statistical analysis (methodological naturalism) is quite capable of detecting phenomenon which are viewed as "metaphysically supernatural". Now, we may find that his experiments prove that ESP exists, then go on to discover a naturalistic cause of these phenomenon, who knows. However, he is showing that the metaphysically supernatural can be explored with a methodologically naturalistic scientific approach. If this is so, then the idea that intelligence may be detectable as we study the details of life is hardly a far fetched idea, hardly an idea that is rejected from science a priori. The latter, of course, is the current view of the scientific community.bFast
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Hosts: Could some please erase (30) and (31)? They duplicate (22), which I'd thought had gotten lost in the spam filter. My apologies!Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
An argument for supernaturalism in science is that it would allow scientists to entertain the possibility that the current notion of nature excludes something that exists and that might be observed. And when the supernatural is observed, it enters the domain of the domain of nature.
In order to reject metaphysical naturalism, one would argue that scientists ought to consider that forces and entities, which are metaphysically distinct from all spatio-temporal, causally-relating entities and forces, are nevertheless empirically detectable and should figure in our theories. In order to reject methodological naturalism, one would argue that the methods of the natural sciences are an inadequate basis for determining what exists. Thus, revelation, miracles, personal epiphanies would be brought back in as sufficient grounds for justifying existence claims. In other words, if we distinguish between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, then we should also distinguish between metaphysical supernaturalism and methodological supernaturalism. Metaphysical supernaturalism is consistent with methodological naturalism -- that is, one could think that entities outside of the causal-spatio-temporal framework are detectable using methods that are part of, or consistent with, those used in natural and social science. (Apparently, the psychologist and philosopher William James thought that occult phenomena could be so treated.) Methodological supernaturalism, on the other hand, would maintain that existence-claims, equivalent to those used elsewhere in objective descriptions of the world, can be justified through 'supernatural' means, e.g. visitations, epiphanies, "intellectual intuition," channeling, past-life regression, divine revelation, etc.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
By the way: I'm the same person as "Carlos." I decided to stop posting under a pseudonym. You can refer to me either as Carl or Carlos -- I use both in real life.Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
Re: Richard Sternberg. "Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth."Carl Sachs
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Carl Sachs wrote, "Real lynchings, Jerry?" I guess that some weak minds might take the comment as literal but I doubt many here would. Any type of real lynching would dominate the cable news channels for months while figurative ones get buried by the press unless they fit a certain political framework. Try googling Richard Sternberg to see an example of a figurative lynching in biology.jerry
September 24, 2006
September
09
Sep
24
24
2006
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Tom English (9) "It means that science is making good headway at explaining life under methodological naturalism. My acceptance of methodological naturalism in science in no way indicates that I believe in naturalism." Very interesting. In a good way. It's a very good position, I think. And the fact that you made this statement clears up some misconceptions that I, and probably others, have had about you on UD. Which leads to my next point. My personal interest in ID vs Darwinism is mainly one of public eduction policy. I think it is perfectly acceptable to proffer materialistic explanations as long as a strong and obvious disclaimer that the explanations are not necessarily "true", but are the best explanations in a materialist paradigm.mike1962
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
Real lynchings, Jerry?Carl Sachs
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
As far as the real world not being as uncivil as cyberspace maybe we should start listing the lynchings and intimidations that go on in the real world of biology. At various times a thread is listed on what biologists actually do when someone challenges NDE or materialism. It is not pretty.jerry
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
This is a repeat of what I said yesterday on another thread but seems to apply here as well. ID postulates the help of an intelligence. Whether this intelligence is supernatural or non-material, or material is not the issue. Or at least it shouldn't be. If the intelligence exists, the presence of this intelligence does not stop science from trying to find other mechanisms than intelligence in every aspect of the natural world so it in no way inhibits science. However, if this intelligence exists then the intelligent thing to do is to admit that there may be some aspect of the natural world for which it may be fruitless to find a non-intelligent based mechanism to explain it. Keep on investigating but be open to the possibility of continued failure in some areas. Right now what is mandated out in science is the possibility of an intelligent input at any place in the materialistic world. This is tantamount to saying there is no other intelligence in existence because if such an intelligence did exist, it never did anything which is the same thing as not existing as far as anything that every affected our planet is concerned. So now we get to the real problem and why this site exists. Alternative viewpoints are not allowed in the school curriculum on this issue. Only one view point is allowed in US public school curriculums and as hard as many have tried here, no one yet has been able to present any evidence defending that view point. Many of us are still waiting for the overwhelming evidence.jerry
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
avocationist, I'm in a rush. But for now I'll say that I have read The Gospel of Thomas a number of times.Tom English
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
An argument for supernaturalism in science is that it would allow scientists to entertain the possibility that the current notion of nature excludes something that exists and that might be observed. And when the supernatural is observed, it enters the domain of the domain of nature.
I'm not so sure about this one, Tom. In order to reject metaphysical naturalism, one would argue that scientists ought to consider that forces and entities which are ontologically distinct from all spatio-temporal, causally-relating entities and forces are nevertheless empirically detectable and should figure in our theories. In order to reject methodological naturalism, one would argue that the methods of the natural sciences are an inadequate basis for determining what exists. Thus, revelation, miracles, personal epiphanies would be brought back in as sufficient grounds for justifying existence claims. In other words, if we distinguish between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism, then we should also distinguish between metaphysical supernaturalism and methodological supernaturalism. Metaphysical supernaturalism is consistent with methodological naturalism -- that is, one could think that entities outside of the causal-spatio-temporal framework are detectable using methods that are part of, or consistent with, those used in natural and social science. (Apparently, the psychologist and philosopher William James thought that occult phenomena could be so treated.) Methodological supernaturalism, on the other hand, would maintain that existence-claims can be justified through traditionally 'supernatural' means, e.g. visitations, epiphanies, channeling, past-life regression, divine revelation, etc. By the way: I have decided to post, from henceforth, under my real name -- Carl Sachs -- rather than under the pseudonym "Carlos." You may refer to me either as Carlos or as Carl; I use both in everyday life.Carl Sachs
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
id.au.net,
Does ID necessarily transgress methodological naturalism when it infers intelligence?
As methodological naturalism is defined in mainstream science, yes. A critical part of the design inference is to rule out natural causes. As I have documented today in some other thread, Bill Dembski used to say that intelligence was non-natural. He shifted in recent years to saying that intelligence is non-material (but natural). But non-material is non-natural for mainstream scientists. And in any case, I think ID was on better philosophical ground when intelligence was non-natural. With the current formulation, natural intelligence can in principle cause miracles (i.e., the probability of an event can go from zero to one).
That would seem to give at least one “material” theoretical possibility to remove the charge of essential supernaturalism from ID.
But supernatural is not perjorative for me or for most philsophers. An argument for supernaturalism in science is that it would allow scientists to entertain the possibility that the current notion of nature excludes something that exists and that might be observed. And when the supernatural is observed, it enters the domain of the domain of nature.Tom English
September 23, 2006
September
09
Sep
23
23
2006
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply